coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kraków.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant became a party to proceedings for division of joint property.
6.  On 18 December 1995 the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a severance order and decided to examine the applicant’s motion in separate proceedings.
7.  From that date the proceedings have been pending before the first‑instance court.
8.  The applicant lodged three complaints under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
9.  In his complaint of 26 November 2008 he sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation.
10.  On 2 February 2009 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the complaint. It found that the length of the proceedings had been partly attributable to the parties who had requested adjournment of three hearings. One hearing was adjourned due to the absence of one of the parties’ lawyers. The court also considered that the impugned proceedings had been complex. At the same time, however, it found some periods of inactivity on the part of the Kraków District Court, acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and granted the applicant PLN 1,000 which it considered “adequate in view of the periods of inactivity found.”
11.  On 7 July 2010 the Kraków Regional Court allowed another applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act. The court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation.
12.  In 2012 the applicant again lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act. He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN 20,000 in compensation.
13.  On 14 August 2012 the Kraków Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation. In the Regional Court’s view the trial court had failed to act in an effective and diligent manner, in particular in the light of the overall length of the proceedings in issue.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Penza.
5.  The applicant sued the Penza town administration and the Penza committee for municipal property management (“the property management committee”), seeking to obtain free of charge the title to a plot of land under the office building he owned.
6.  On 16 November 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza (“the District Court”) held for the applicant and ordered the town administration to establish his title to the land at issue. The judgment was not appealed against and became final within the statutory ten-day time-limit.
7.  On 7 March 2006 the Penza town administration lodged an application for supervisory review.
8.  On 19 June 2006 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2005, considering that the District Court had incorrectly established the facts of the case and erroneously applied the domestic material law. It consequently remitted the case to the District Court for consideration anew.
9.  On 10 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The applicant did not appeal and the judgment became final within the statutory ten-day time-limit.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Achisu, the Republic of Dagestan.
5.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant applied to the district court for readjustment of compensation for damage to his son’s health awarded by judgments of 13 August and 4 December 2002 against OAO Dagenergo, an open joint-stock company (“the company”), in line with new legislation.
6.  On 19 April 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala allowed his claim. The court awarded the applicant 61,607 Russian roubles (RUB) in readjustment. The court also ordered the company to pay monthly amounts equal to the living cost for the employable population from 15 December 2004. On 20 May 2005 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal.
7.  On an unspecified date the company initiated supervisory review proceedings.
8.  On 6 October 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic quashed the judgments of 19 April and 20 May 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium established that the courts had erred in the application of the domestic law, namely that they had applied the new legislation retrospectively and had failed to reflect the correct adjustment method in their judgments.
9.  On 22 November 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala ruled against the applicant, finding that the new legislation was inapplicable to the case at hand.
10.  On 10 February 2006 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal.
11.  The applicant was a party to several sets of civil proceedings.
12.  In 1999 he brought an action in connection with an injury sustained by his son. On 13 August 2002 the district court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and ordered the defendant company to pay him pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 19 December 2002 the district court issued a writ of enforcement. The enforcement proceedings were ended on 14 September 2004.
13.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant sued the Department of Education of Izberbash at the Izberbash Town Court on a work-related matter. The applicant sought reinstatement in his job and work-related benefits. On 16 August 2006 the town court rejected the applicant’s action in full. He did not lodge an appeal.
14.  The applicant was also engaged in a housing dispute. On 27 January 2003 the Izberbash Town Council refused to provide him with housing. It does not appear that the applicant challenged the refusal before a court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Ajka.
5.  On 22 July 1990 the applicant and Pápa és Vidéke ÁFÉSZ, a legal person, concluded a lease contract concerning the property of the latter party.
6.  The applicant apparently breached his contractual obligations and failed to pay the monthly rental fees between October 1993 and October 1994.
7.  After several unsuccessful deadline extensions and requests for payment, Pápa és Vidéke ÁFÉSZ terminated the lease contract with immediate effect on 26 October 1994.
8.  In November 1994 Pápa és Vidéke ÁFÉSZ lodged a compensation claim with the Veszprém County Regional Court against the applicant.
9.  The first-instance court found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay the overdue rental fees (approximately 1,600 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests to the plaintiff.
10.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on 2 December 2003.
11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which rejected it on 8 December 2005. The decision was served on the applicant on 26 January 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Maribor.
6.  On 16 January 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Maribor Basic Court against the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning for an injunction that they put into effect a decision on the construction of a dam close to a hydroelectric power plant built by the applicant.
7.  On 18 March 1993 the applicant modified his claim into payment of pecuniary damages.
8.   By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court had scheduled three main hearings of which one had been adjourned.
9.  On 28 July 1995 the Maribor Local Court issued an order declaring itself as not having the subject-matter jurisdiction and referring the case to the Maribor District Court.
10.  Two main hearings were held on 3 July 1996 and 19 September 1996 respectively.
11.  Further two hearings scheduled for 24 October 1996 and 20 November 1997 were adjourned due the applicant’s health problems.
12.  A further hearing was held on 26 February 1999.
13. On 30 March 1999 the court held the last main hearing and issued its decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 14 September 1999 the Maribor Higher Court quashed the first instance court’s decision and remitted the case back to the first instance court.
15.  Five hearings were held in the new proceedings between 11 January 2001 and 7 November 2002. On the latter date the Maribor District Court issued a decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
16.  On 11 July 2006 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and altered the decision on the merits, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties lodged an appeal on points of law.
17.  On 8 May 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s appeal on points of law and altered the decision of the higher court by dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
18.  On 28 November 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975. He is currently detained in Măgineni Prison.
  The physical conditions of the applicant’s detention in Poarta Albă and Mărgineni Prisons
6.  In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that he had been detained in overcrowded cells which had lacked heating.
7.  Starting from 2004 the applicant was detained and transferred between a number of prisons, including Poarta Albă and Măgineni Prisons.
8.  The applicant was first detained in Poarta Albă Prison on 17 April 2006. The records concerning the cells the applicant had been detained in and the number of detainees he had shared the cells with during his time in detention there between 2006 and 2010 had been destroyed in accordance with the requirements of applicable domestic legislation.
9.  From 2010 onwards the applicant was detained in Poarta Albă Prison from 19 February 2010 to 22 July 2013. During this period he was transferred repeatedly from Poarta Albă to Măgineni and other prison facilities as a result, among other things, of his violent behaviour towards other inmates and prison personnel.
10.  In Poarta Albă Prison the applicant was detained in several cells where he was afforded between 3, 79 and 5, 03 sq. m of living space.
11.  Part of the prison was fitted with its own central heating system, while the remaining part was heated by stoves. The heating was carried out based on a pre-determined schedule and on the available heating supplies and by taking into account the outdoor temperature.
12.  The applicant was detained in Măgineni Prison from 5 December 2011 to date. During this period he was transferred repeatedly to Poarta Albă and other prison facilities.
13.  In Măgineni Prison the applicant was detained in several cells where he was afforded between 1, 62 and 8, 02 sq. m of living space.
14.  Each cell had electrical power and was fitted with individual beds, tables, chairs and benches.
15.  The prison was also fitted with its own gas central heating system. The system was working properly. The cells had radiators, which ensured an appropriate temperature in the rooms during winter and when the outside temperature demanded it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ljubljana.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 2 September 2009 the applicant stopped her car on the road in front of a school to let her children get out of the car. At that time, during a regular control, police officer S. found that the applicant had failed to use the seat-belt. The next day, the applicant allegedly approached S. and started insulting her. S. asked the applicant to follow her to the police station but the applicant refused to do so. Then S. requested the applicant to present her identity card which the applicant also refused to do. On the same day, S. issued a penalty notice against the applicant for not using the seat-belt, indecent behaviour, failure to comply with a public official’s lawful order and failure to submit identity papers. The fine amounted to 991.12 euros (EUR).
7.  On 22 October 2009 the applicant filed a request for judicial review in which she submitted that on 3 September 2009 she was at home and she was not the person that S. dealt with.
8.  On 15 September 2010 the Ljubljana Local Court heard S. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the hearing.
9.  On 16 September 2010 the Local Court rejected the request for judicial review on the basis of S.’s statement. Moreover, it held that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence in support of her application.
10.  On 11 October 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the Local Court’s findings of fact. Moreover, she complained that she had not been heard.
11.  On 2 November 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as inadmissible.
10.  The applicant is a French national who was born in 1990 and lives in France.
11.  In the applicant’s submission, she is a devout Muslim and she wears the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions. According to her explanation, the burqa is a full-body covering including a mesh over the face, and the niqab is a full-face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes. The applicant emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put pressure on her to dress in this manner.
12.  The applicant added that she wore the niqab in public and in private, but not systematically: she might not wear it, for example, when she visited the doctor, when meeting friends in a public place, or when she wanted to socialise in public. She was thus content not to wear the niqab in public places at all times but wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so, depending in particular on her spiritual feelings. There were certain times (for example, during religious events such as Ramadan) when she believed that she ought to wear it in public in order to express her religious, personal and cultural faith. Her aim was not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.
13.  The applicant did not claim that she should be able to keep the niqab on when undergoing a security check, at the bank or in airports, and she agreed to show her face when requested to do so for necessary identity checks.
14.  Since 11 April 2011, the date of entry into force of Law no. 2010‑1192 of 11 October 2010 throughout France, it has been prohibited for anyone to conceal their face in public places.
6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Banja Luka.
7.  By a judgment of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 23 February 2009 which became final on 11 May 2009, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, 34,000 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate and BAM 4,667 in respect of legal costs together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant.
8.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 29 June 2009.
9.  The applicant complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
10.  The final judgment in favour of the applicant remains unenforced to this day.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lived in Budapest.
6.  On 23 April 2002 she brought an action before the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court, seeking the dissolution of common ownership.
7.  On 22 November 2007 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, adopted a partial judgment in the case.
8.  Pursuant to the applicant’s petition for review, the Supreme Court quashed the partial judgment on 25 June 2008 and remitted the case to the first instance court.
9.  The case was terminated by the Budapest Regional Court on 1 December 2011 (service: 6 January 2012).
10.  On 6 March 2012 the applicant’s lawyer posted a first communication to the Court, indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the application. The communication was dated 5 March 2012.
6.  The applicant lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7.  By a judgment of the Prijedor Court of First Instance of 24 November 2000 which became final on 12 January 2001, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, 7,000 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 600 in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant.
8.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 August 2001.
9.  The applicant complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 20 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant did not claim compensation, but even if she had done so, her claim would most likely have been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, §195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, §79; AP 224/08 of 8 December 2010, §37).
10.  After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), on 25 April 2012 the applicant informed the authorities that she agreed to be paid the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued to the applicant on 31 May 2012. On 17 September 2012 the applicant sold all of her bonds on the Stock Exchange.
6.  On 19 July 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic found the applicant guilty of corruption and an abuse of official powers and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed alleging, in particular, that he was innocent, that the prosecution had been unlawful and the trial court had applied the criminal law erroneously.
7.  On 26 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted it for a new hearing.
8.  On 2 March 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic found the applicant guilty as charged before and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal. He complained, among other matters, about erroneous interpretation of law, improper assessment of evidence by the courts, and an excessive severity of the penalty
9.  On 23 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal reducing the sentence to four years’ imprisonment.
10.  Between 2 March and 16 June 2011 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-21/1 in the Cheboksary Region. The facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 39 measuring 23 sq. m was equipped with fourteen sleeping places and accommodated up to ten inmates.
11.  The applicant submitted the following evidence in support of the above allegations: his complaints to the prison management and their reply and statements by three cellmates.
4.  The applicant is a Russian national and lives in Saratov.
5.  On 1 June 1994 the applicant’s father, Mr Vladimir Dmitrievich Yakovlev, deposited an unspecified amount of money with the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation (“the Savings Bank”) in her name. The deposit was to be kept for at least ten years and was redeemable after the applicant had reached the age of sixteen. The interest rate was fixed at 190 per cent per annum.
6.  Later, the Savings Bank reduced the interest rate.
7.  Considering the Savings Bank’s unilateral decision unlawful, Mr Yakovlev brought a civil claim against it.
8.  On 25 July 2001 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov found that the terms of the deposit did not provide for unilateral changes in the interest rate and held that the Savings Bank should calculate interest at the rate of 190 per cent starting from 1 June 1994 and until the maturity of the deposit.
9.  On 31 August 2001 the Saratov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.
10.  On 13 January 2003 Mr Yakovlev died.
11.  On an unspecified date the Savings Bank lodged an application for supervisory review which was rejected by the Saratov Regional Court on 19 May 2003.
12.  On 30 January 2004 the Savings Bank filed a new application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court. It asserted that Mr Yakovlev’s claim should have been dismissed as premature because the maturity date had not yet occurred.
13.  On 26 April 2004 the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 July 2001, as upheld on 31 August 2001, and dismissed the claim lodged by the late Mr Yakovlev, holding that the interest could only be calculated after the terms of the deposit had been fulfilled. As regards the re-opening of the proceedings after the plaintiff’s death, the Presidium found as follows:
“The fact that Mr V. Yakovlev died does not preclude a new decision from being made in the case because his claim had been lodged on behalf of his underage daughter – Ms Ye. Yakovleva. At present she is represented by her mother, Mrs N. Yakovleva, who participated to the hearing before the Presidium.”
14.  On 2 May 2005 the applicant turned sixteen. On an unspecified date the Savings Bank offered to pay her 28,928 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 900 euros (EUR)). There is no information on whether she accepted this offer.
5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Nizmennoye, the Kaliningrad Region.
6.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle her to receive a passenger car in 1994. She paid the car’s full value but never received the car. The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, claiming the full monetary value of the special‑purpose settlement orders for purchasing of a car.
7.  On 19 August 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic allowed the applicant’s action. The court found that the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders, were to be recognised as the State internal debt, and should be settled at the expense of the federal budget. With reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 the court noted that the compensation to the bearers of special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase passenger cars in 1993-1995 was to be paid in 2002-2003. The court awarded the applicant 115,000 Russian roubles against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.
8.  On 18 September 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.
9.  According to the Government’s observations of 23 October 2008, on 16 September 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic reviewed the lower courts’ judgments by way of the supervisory review proceedings, acting upon a relevant request by the respondent authority. The Presidium found that the lower courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds Act and the Government’s Resolution no. 1006 and therefore had misapplied the domestic law. The Presidium annulled the judgment of 19 August 2002 and the appeal decision of 18 September 2002 and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim in full.